Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Dear Richard: I make lots of progress in giving up certain debilitating attachments here when I get chewed out, so that is great for my sadhanna. Now I want to ask you if you reacted unpleasantly when I changed my name. If you have and are willing to look at it, it is valuable for your sadhanna also, right? If you are totally centered about it then I say it was Sri Ramana comming through you to teach me. By the way I never loved any of the 5 Guru's that initiated me. I had mostly aversions to them and what they stood for, but with Sri Ramana is it different. I really have loving feelings about him. I have told Gabriele that I may out Bhakti her. That holds for Viorica too. More ego huh? Loving Sri Ramana RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > Dear Alton of All Names, > > I am just giving you a loving "hard time." And finding another way > to turn your attention within. Whatever the name, it will not bring > inner peace. How is this inner peace found? > > Not two, > Richard > > RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Dear "Tired of The World" Viorica: > > I apologize if I am a negative influence on you. I will make > amends > > by once again changing my name to, Loving Sri Ramana. Is that fine > > with you? I see Richard is not taking kindly to my incessant name > > changes governed my particular combination of the five elements > and > > 3 gunas, but I accept it as Sri Ramana's will. > > > > Loving Sri Ramana formerly Tired of Names > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote: > > > dear Alton , > > > thank you for having given up 'tired of names'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Dear Alton, I had and have no upset about your names. I was merely holding up a mirror for you. I saw this as an opportunity to do so. Love for Guru is also that same as love of Self. Guru and Self are the same. I know that you will not engage in a "race to devotion" with others. Certainly "spiritual egoism" can be a risk. Mre than once in my practice, I have noticed that in myself. So, in my case, back to the inquiry... That you have recognized it here means that you already are glearing some more of the ego-I. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > Dear Richard: > I make lots of progress in giving up certain debilitating attachments > here when I get chewed out, so that is great for my sadhanna. > > Now I want to ask you if you reacted unpleasantly when I changed my > name. If you have and are willing to look at it, it is valuable for > your sadhanna also, right? If you are totally centered about it then > I say it was Sri Ramana comming through you to teach me. > > By the way I never loved any of the 5 Guru's that initiated me. I had > mostly aversions to them and what they stood for, but with Sri Ramana > is it different. I really have loving feelings about him. I have told > Gabriele that I may out Bhakti her. That holds for Viorica too. > More ego huh? > > Loving Sri Ramana > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > > Dear Alton of All Names, > > > > I am just giving you a loving "hard time." And finding another way > > to turn your attention within. Whatever the name, it will not > bring > > inner peace. How is this inner peace found? > > > > Not two, > > Richard > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > Dear "Tired of The World" Viorica: > > > I apologize if I am a negative influence on you. I will make > > amends > > > by once again changing my name to, Loving Sri Ramana. Is that > fine > > > with you? I see Richard is not taking kindly to my incessant name > > > changes governed my particular combination of the five elements > > and > > > 3 gunas, but I accept it as Sri Ramana's will. > > > > > > Loving Sri Ramana formerly Tired of Names > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> > wrote: > > > > dear Alton , > > > > thank you for having given up 'tired of names'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Dear Sri Loving, > I make lots of progress in giving up certain > debilitating attachments here when I get chewed > out, so that is great for my sadhana. Who said that's progress? There are types of yoga where people try hard to give up attachments. They try, in general, to stop their egos from doing the silly things that egos love to do. This idea is not part of Self-inquiry. Sri Ramana said: .. You need not eliminate the wrong 'I'. How .. can 'I' eliminate itself? All you need to do .. is find its origin and abide there. Then the .. beyond will take care of itself. You are .. helpless there. No effort can reach it. [1] Sri Ramana said that efforts to kill the ego are a waste of time because such efforts can only be made by the ego itself. Such efforts strengthen the ego instead of killing it. .. To ask the mind to kill the mind is like making .. the thief the policeman. He will go with you and .. pretend to catch the thief, but nothing will be gained. .. So you must turn inward and see from where the .. mind rises and then it will cease to exist. [2] As for signs of progress, so far as I know, Sri Ramana never mentioned more than one: .. The degree of absence of thoughts is the measure .. of your progress towards Self-realisation. But .. Self-realisation itself does not admit of progress, it .. is ever the same. The Self remains always in .. realisation. The obstacles are thoughts. Progress is .. measured by the degree of removal of the obstacles .. to understanding that the Self is always realised. .. So thoughts must be checked by seeking to whom .. they arise. So you go tot their source, where they do .. not arise. [3] If your mind is getting more quiet, then progress is being made, even if your name is changing on an hourly basis. Cheers, Rob Footnotes: 1. Talks, p. 163. 2. Day By Day With Bhagavan by D. Mudaliar, page 31. 3. Talks, p. 582. - "Alton Slater" <leenalton <RamanaMaharshi> Sunday, September 15, 2002 1:54 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Richard: Preconceived concepts > Dear Richard: > I make lots of progress in giving up certain debilitating attachments > here when I get chewed out, so that is great for my sadhanna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Dear Richard, > I was merely holding up a mirror for you. The mirror showed the activity of his ego. He is not his ego. What then was the use of this mirror? > I know that you will not engage in a "race to > devotion" with others. If his ego engages in such a race, what difference does it make? How does it affect him or any of us? He is not his ego. > Certainly "spiritual egoism" can be a risk. A risk to what? The Self cannot be hurt, and the ego is already the ego and cannot be anything other than the ego. Let it do its dance. It doesn't matter, and the attempt to stop it is counter-productive. Cheers, Rob - "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke <RamanaMaharshi> Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:17 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Richard: Preconceived concepts > Dear Alton, > > I had and have no upset about your names. I was merely holding up a > mirror for you. I saw this as an opportunity to do so. > > Love for Guru is also that same as love of Self. Guru and Self are > the same. > > I know that you will not engage in a "race to devotion" with others. > Certainly "spiritual egoism" can be a risk. Mre than once in my > practice, I have noticed that in myself. So, in my case, back to the > inquiry... That you have recognized it here means that you already > are glearing some more of the ego-I. > > We are Not two, > Richard > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > Dear Richard: > > I make lots of progress in giving up certain debilitating > attachments > > here when I get chewed out, so that is great for my sadhanna. > > > > Now I want to ask you if you reacted unpleasantly when I changed my > > name. If you have and are willing to look at it, it is valuable for > > your sadhanna also, right? If you are totally centered about it > then > > I say it was Sri Ramana comming through you to teach me. > > > > By the way I never loved any of the 5 Guru's that initiated me. I > had > > mostly aversions to them and what they stood for, but with Sri > Ramana > > is it different. I really have loving feelings about him. I have > told > > Gabriele that I may out Bhakti her. That holds for Viorica too. > > More ego huh? > > > > Loving Sri Ramana > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > > > Dear Alton of All Names, > > > > > > I am just giving you a loving "hard time." And finding another > way > > > to turn your attention within. Whatever the name, it will not > > bring > > > inner peace. How is this inner peace found? > > > > > > Not two, > > > Richard > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > > Dear "Tired of The World" Viorica: > > > > I apologize if I am a negative influence on you. I will make > > > amends > > > > by once again changing my name to, Loving Sri Ramana. Is that > > fine > > > > with you? I see Richard is not taking kindly to my incessant > name > > > > changes governed my particular combination of the five > elements > > > and > > > > 3 gunas, but I accept it as Sri Ramana's will. > > > > > > > > Loving Sri Ramana formerly Tired of Names > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> > > wrote: > > > > > dear Alton , > > > > > thank you for having given up 'tired of names'. > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi- > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 P.S. In my previous message I said that so far as I know, Sri Ramana described only one sign of progress. However when speaking specifically of meditation he described two signs: .. D.: In the practice of meditation are there any .. signs of the nature of subjective experience or .. otherwise, which will indicate the aspirant's .. progress towards Self-Realisation? .. .. M.: The degree of freedom from unwanted .. thoughts and the degree of concentration on a .. single thought are the measure to gauge the .. progress. (Talks, article 427.) - "Rob Sacks" <editor <RamanaMaharshi> Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:32 PM Re: [RamanaMaharshi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Dear Rob, Be careful about negating the need for a seeker to practice. Neither Ramana nor Shakara recommend against practice. Sankara saw discrimination as one of the requisite to realization. Ramana specifically says that Resalization is a matter of removing the ignorance, the incorrect ideas. Ramana must not have been seeking about the Absolute when he gave this instruction, since the absolute has not ignorance. Again, from the all text "Who am I?" paragraphs 2 and 3: "Who am I?" I am not this physical body, nor am I the five organs of sense perception, I am not the five organs of external activity, nor am I the five vital forces, nor am I even the thinking Mind. Neither am I that unconscious state of nescience which retains merely the subtle vasanas (latencies of the mind) which being free from the functional activity of the sense organs and of the mind, and being unaware of the existence of the objects of sense perception. Therefore, summarily rejecting all the above-mentioned physical adjuncts and their functions, saying "I am not this; no, nor am I this, nor this" — that which remains separate and alone by itself, that pure Awareness is what I am. This Awareness is by its very nature Sat-Chit-Ananda (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss). Typically seekers who negate the need for practice before they have finished negating all the five sheaths (body, prana, mind, intellect, "bliss-body") end up getting stuck. The risk of ego in practice is that spiritual progress comes from elimination of ego (and the resulting spiritual knowledge). Engaging in practices that enhance the ego are going in the wrong direction. We are Not two, Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Richard, > > > I was merely holding up a mirror for you. > > The mirror showed the activity of his ego. He is > not his ego. What then was the use of this mirror? > > > I know that you will not engage in a "race to > > devotion" with others. > > If his ego engages in such a race, what difference does > it make? How does it affect him or any of us? He is > not his ego. > > > Certainly "spiritual egoism" can be a risk. > > A risk to what? The Self cannot be hurt, and the ego > is already the ego and cannot be anything other than > the ego. Let it do its dance. It doesn't matter, and the > attempt to stop it is counter-productive. > > Cheers, > > Rob > > > - > "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:17 PM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Richard: Preconceived concepts > > > > Dear Alton, > > > > I had and have no upset about your names. I was merely holding up a > > mirror for you. I saw this as an opportunity to do so. > > > > Love for Guru is also that same as love of Self. Guru and Self are > > the same. > > > > I know that you will not engage in a "race to devotion" with others. > > Certainly "spiritual egoism" can be a risk. Mre than once in my > > practice, I have noticed that in myself. So, in my case, back to the > > inquiry... That you have recognized it here means that you already > > are glearing some more of the ego-I. > > > > We are Not two, > > Richard > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > Dear Richard: > > > I make lots of progress in giving up certain debilitating > > attachments > > > here when I get chewed out, so that is great for my sadhanna. > > > > > > Now I want to ask you if you reacted unpleasantly when I changed my > > > name. If you have and are willing to look at it, it is valuable for > > > your sadhanna also, right? If you are totally centered about it > > then > > > I say it was Sri Ramana comming through you to teach me. > > > > > > By the way I never loved any of the 5 Guru's that initiated me. I > > had > > > mostly aversions to them and what they stood for, but with Sri > > Ramana > > > is it different. I really have loving feelings about him. I have > > told > > > Gabriele that I may out Bhakti her. That holds for Viorica too. > > > More ego huh? > > > > > > Loving Sri Ramana > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> wrote: > > > > Dear Alton of All Names, > > > > > > > > I am just giving you a loving "hard time." And finding another > > way > > > > to turn your attention within. Whatever the name, it will not > > > bring > > > > inner peace. How is this inner peace found? > > > > > > > > Not two, > > > > Richard > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Alton Slater" <leenalton@h...> wrote: > > > > > Dear "Tired of The World" Viorica: > > > > > I apologize if I am a negative influence on you. I will make > > > > amends > > > > > by once again changing my name to, Loving Sri Ramana. Is that > > > fine > > > > > with you? I see Richard is not taking kindly to my incessant > > name > > > > > changes governed my particular combination of the five > > elements > > > > and > > > > > 3 gunas, but I accept it as Sri Ramana's will. > > > > > > > > > > Loving Sri Ramana formerly Tired of Names > > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> > > > wrote: > > > > > > dear Alton , > > > > > > thank you for having given up 'tired of names'. > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi@o... > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > > Un: RamanaMaharshi-@o... > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner@o... > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > /community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2002 Report Share Posted September 15, 2002 Dear Richard, > Be careful about negating the need for a seeker > to practice. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what I said that made you misunderstand me so completely. What I said was: Sri Ramana's method of self-inquiry is not the sort of practice in which the ego tries to eliminate its various behaviors. But certainly, Self-inquiry is a type of practice. And certainly, Sri Ramana recommended that people put time and effort into it. Cheers, Rob - "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke <RamanaMaharshi> Sunday, September 15, 2002 11:34 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Richard: Preconceived concepts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2002 Report Share Posted September 16, 2002 Dear Rob, As I read your comments to Loving, I realized what my misunderstood was. I had commented to Loving in ways that were intended to bring him more inquiry on ego. You had comments from the point of view, I now think, saying attempts to CONTROL the ego are doomed to failure, since this control itself builds ego. (I certainly agree with this view.)You had also gone on (paraphrasing - and probably incorrectly) to say that since the ego is just an illusion anyway that one should focus on the Self. I read this as advise for the seeker not to discriminate Reality from their ego-ideas of the universe, that this was not needed since they are the Self to begin with. This is a common error for seekers, that ends up getting them stuck where they do not remove those very ideas and mental habits that limit their stand as body or mind or intellect, etc. Not discriminating these ideas, they later get stuck in them. Sorry for my lack of clarity. We are Not two. Richard RamanaMaharshi, "Rob Sacks" <editor@r...> wrote: > Dear Richard, > > > Be careful about negating the need for a seeker > > to practice. > > I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what > I said that made you misunderstand me so completely. > > What I said was: Sri Ramana's method of self-inquiry > is not the sort of practice in which the ego tries to > eliminate its various behaviors. > > But certainly, Self-inquiry is a type of practice. And > certainly, Sri Ramana recommended that people > put time and effort into it. > > Cheers, > > Rob > > - > "Richard Clarke" <r_clarke@i...> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Sunday, September 15, 2002 11:34 PM > [RamanaMaharshi] Re: Richard: Preconceived concepts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.